TWO DVDS RELEASING SEPTEMBER 11!

    Search this blog for my review of each. (Both are must-see!)

Read More

FALL TV SHOWS 2012

Anything good on TV this Fall? The very word “TV” can conjure up so many different concepts depending on how one uses TV. “TV” does not have to be watched on a television set anymore (although Americans overwhelmingly watched the 2012 Summer Olympics on their TVs) . It can be watched on our iPhone or laptop by going to a website or using an app. We can record up to five shows simultaneously on certain DVRs. Or we can just buy, download or rent an entire season of a particular show that aired five years ago or longer. Our TV choices are endless today. But content is still king, and it’s only the most captivating and watched shows that get to stay on the air.

Why are there so many mediocre new shows put forth each Fall? Shows you just know are going to fail? Because the money is still made through advertising as people rush to try out these new shows in their first few weeks, and through international sales. Scheduling? It’s beyond confusing with new shows having their first episodes rolling out as late as November, and then recess for weeks and start up again.

The scope and quality of shows differs greatly. Some shows (also depending on genre) look like the ephemeral media that they are(“Two Broke Girls”), others look like the finest in costly cinematic productions ("Cold Case," “White Collar,” “NCIS,” “Mad Men,” “Burn Notice”). Some shows are still basically sweet and innocent even in this day and age (“Psych”), and others are consistently assaulting and continually pushing the raunch-envelope (“Two and a Half Men,” “Family Guy”).

There are plenty of returning, favorite shows this Fall and plenty of new ones.  “Entertainment Weekly,” in their “Fall TV Preview” double-issue recommends these five (I am NOT condoning any of these choices—haven’t seen even previews):
1. Nashville—the music industry
2. Ben and Kate—an adult brother and sister show
3. Elementary—a take-off on Sherlock Holmes in the USA
4. Last Resort—two ballistic submarine officers together on an island (EW swears it works!)
5. The Mindy Project—Mindy Kalling from “The Office” is an OBGYN and party girl (this does NOT bode well)

More shocking violence? More explicit sex? More profanity and crass language? Yes, yes and yes. (There are watchdog groups that track the escalation of these things and the report/outlook is grim.) So why wouldn’t someone just stay away from it all? Because there are gems among the muck, and if we want to be a part of the New Evangelization, we need to know what people are drinking in and where their heads are at so we can engage the culture and offer right remedies and tailored prescriptions for what ails it. But always with prayer and prudence, of course. “Know thyself.” Are certain TV shows occasions of sin for you? (Absolute honesty is essential here.) We are not allowed to do evil that good may result.

EW's predictions for Emmys this year are for edgier fare: "Breaking Bad," "Modern Family," "Louie--comedian Louis C.K.," etc.

An interesting sort of “study” of Fall sitcoms revolving around family life might be:
“Modern Family” vs. “The New Normal.” “Modern Family” portrays a three families: a white, older Dad with a Latina wife and boy, a white gay male couple with an adopted Vietnamese baby, a “traditional” family of Mom, Dad and three kids. “Modern Family” was praised for the fact that it showed up-to-the-minute realistic modern-day details like families bringing iPads and other media devices to the dinner table. “The New Normal,” features a politically-incorrect, crass, loud-mouthed (but “traditional values”) grandmother.  Her daughter and granddaughter are friends with a gay male couple who will be using the daughter as the surrogate for their child. Even the titles of these two shows is telling. The emphasis is on societal changes, the agenda is acceptability, normalization, mainstreaming.  Reality check? Yup, what they’re portraying is true to life, if even among a minority. EW calls "Parenthood" "tender" and "grossly underrated."

I polled my young adult friends on Twitter and Facebook about their favorite TV shows, especially sitcoms, that they consider “morally OK” (not necessarily perfect). Here’s what I got:

Another interesting “study” might be the whole genre of “singles” shows (TV is rife with them!), perhaps thinking about singles living “as” families. Since young people are waiting longer and longer to marry and/or “settle down,” twenty- and thirty-somethings find themselves in all kinds of living arrangements that act as proxy families—neither family-of-origin nor forming-one’s-own-family. More of an unknown-timetable, interim situation. (“How I Met Your Mother,” “The Big Bang Theory,” "New Girl"--there are just so many!)

Starting with, perhaps, “That Girl” (1966-1971), there have always been TV shows about singles, seemingly focusing on women more than men. The stigma of single women as “spinsters” or “old maids” was done away with starting in the early 60’s with the Sexual Revolution and “Cosmopolitan” Magazine editor Helen Gurley Brown’s 1962 book “Sex and the Single Girl."

“The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” and even “Golden Girls” celebrated being happy, fulfilled, female and single. Then came “Sex and the City,” which upped the risqué-factor with a concentration on thirty-something single women’s very active sex lives in NYC (which, unfortunately, is true to life). NYC is also the abortion capital of America. One zip code in Brooklyn has 16 abortions to every 10 births.

As early as 1961, Joan Didion wrote about New York City as a kind of holding pattern (she calls it a “leave of absence”) for young women, where doggedly pursuing their future goals was put on hold to “mess around,” rather prolongedly.

And now we have HBO’s tragic “Girls.” But it’s supposed to be a (poignant) barrel of laughs. “Girls” picks up where “Sex and the City” left off. And things have devolved for…guess who? Women. “Girls” is written and produced by Lea Dunham and stars herself and three other twenty-something girlfriends. The audience is treated to lots of nudity and (purposefully) awkward sex scenes which Lea herself describes (semi-autobiographically) this way: “My girlfriends and I are all in degrading sexual relationships with guys. But we’re all feminists.” The boyfriends expect the girls to act out maneuvers they’ve seen in their porn. Also, tragically, true-to-life. (This also goes for married women today.) The paradox and horror of it all is that these shows are being honest about how things really are, but there is a wholesale ACCEPTANCE, and a carefree “What can you do?” attitude on the part of women. Really? And you’re feminists? Ah, but with so-called absolute sexual freedom, women are ALWAYS the losers, but we have to keep that stiff upper lip and pretend it’s the only way to go, and we can live with it and we’re OK with it and we gotta keep on lovin’ the abuse! Right, ladies? Cuz we’re enlightened. Oh yes, and abortion is funny in “Girls.” One girl gets all giddily excited about “going to her first abortion” (she accompanies a friend). I can HEAR my heart physically breaking.

OTHER STUFF (PURELY SUBJECTIVE AND HIGHLY OPINIONATED):

MY FAVORITE TV SHOWS? (I never just watch TV. I’m always working in front of it, usually at my computer, and only later in the evening.) I’m a huge surfer, watching little bits of everything. But when I put the remote down, I find myself staying on:

--“Dog the Bounty Hunter” (believe it or not, the most Christian show on television, showing forth the mercy of the Father). My all-time favorite TV show, hands down. No one beats the music they use for their soundtracks.

--Real-Life TV (non-sensational following of people in their real lives and unusual jobs, as opposed to Reality-TV which are hyped-up, unnatural set-ups like “Survivor,” “Fear Factor,” “Real Housewives,” etc.)—I like shows like “Pawn Stars,” and anything job-related

--nature/animal shows (Awwwwww)

--news shows (serious ones) or serious talk shows like Tavis Smiley (best interviewer in the biz) and Charlie Rose. “Nightline,” for example, is not a serious news show.

--“Project Runway” (I usually stay far away from competitive shows because they are often so mean and heartbreaking--“PR” can be, too—but Tim Gunn was once voted “nicest man on TV.” and I love the principles of art and design that come out on the show.)

--PBS and educational shows

--Lifetime Movie Network (LMN)—a truly mixed bag, but always a woman’s story! Some are salacious and ridiculous, others extremely intriguing and well-done thrillers or true-life stories. As a screenwriter I’m always studying story structure, character development, dialogue, etc., and LMN is a great place to do that, even though it’s mostly “made for TV.” (They also have lots of fluffy fare produced in Canada and I have a pathological fascination listening to Canadians trying to hide their accents and trying to imitate Americans but they’re just  don’t have the same surreality and delusions of grandeur and pizzazz that we do because they’re so serious and sane and normal and I love trying to guess what part of Canada they’re in and look for red mailboxes and stuff.)

--catch up on any “important” movies (old or new) that I’ve never seen

--and, of course, hockey (but only in season. Those reruns are just sad.)

I HARDLY EVER WATCH:

--DIY shows, gardening shows, cooking shows, home improvement shows (make my head hurt)

--talent contest shows--“American Idol,” “Britain’s Got Talent,” etc.

--late night (morning or daytime) talk shows--(pure silliness of a kind I can’t endure) “Wendy Williams” is just the worst. There is no excuse for that show.

--religious channels/shows--(Unfortunately, usually just too boring. With exceptions.)

--Hallmark Channel—I’m afraid of diabetes

Read More

STILL NEEDED: $40,000!

THANK YOU!

Read More

NOT A RAPPER BATTLE--A VOCATION RETREAT!

Read More

"OMGOSH! IT'S OUR FAVORITE SONG!"

JUST in case you weren't one of the 9 million who already viewed this.

Read More

GOT ATHEISTS?

Review of "Cosmic Origins" DVD
(Ignatius Press)

Got atheists? Atheist friends or family, that is? The “stellar” new DVD “Cosmic Origins” might help! Today’s top scientists (many award-winning) weigh in on the mysterious origins of our universe (and a possible beyond). Old and new cosmological theories are presented, leading up to the possibility of an “intelligent Designer.” But the film—being mostly a scientific exploration/explanation--doesn’t harp on “intelligent design,” which, as Cardinal George tells us, belongs more to the realm of philosophy rather than either science or religion. Physics is juxtaposed with a brief consideration of metaphysics. One does not feel bamboozled or railroaded by a sudden “attack” of “religious thought” at the end, where Jesuit priest Robert Spitzer (Magis Institute for Faith & Reason) introduces the concept of a harmonious relationship between science and belief.

The tone is one of informative scientific updating (for the layperson, but without talking down to us). Definitely not an “apologetics” tone. I try to keep up with the latest scientific findings (especially regarding cosmology), but I learned a lot from this film.

The format is diverse: footage of the universe, graphics, interviews, more than one live host, “man-in-the-street” opinions, etc. “Cosmic Origins” never lags. There is a conspicuous presence of young adults (especially the “man-in-the-street” insets, but although it personalizes all the information, I will eat my veil if these AREN’T scripted actors which smacks of inauthenticity. Too bad the filmmakers couldn’t have gotten REAL reactions). Atheism is the fastest growing “religion” among young adults and the “New Atheism” movement is eagerly proselytizing these young minds and hearts. “Unaffiliated” is becoming the preferred category for young adults under “Religion” when filling out forms.

Carl Sagan wanted the average person to be informed about science and was frustrated by what he deemed Americans’ “celebration of ignorance!” Famous “new atheist,” Richard Dawkins, held the position of Oxford’s “Professor of Public Understanding of Science” from 1995 to 2008, which is a lovely-sounding title that I’m all for. However, scientists also need to understand that not everyone is interested in understanding how things work or even the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. And it can be argued that the average person does not even NEED to know these things to flourish. It could be argued that the average person WOULD benefit much more from knowing what, say, another type of scientist, that is, a medical doctor, knows! Also, we all have our own specialties. Does Dawkins know what a mechanic knows? Can he fix his own car? Sometimes, scientists have a kind of hubris, demanding that everyone bow down to their discipline/field as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON EARTH.

The universal longing for love, meaning, fulfillment, self-understanding, connection with others, etc., trumps the desire for and acquisition of practical/functional knowledge every time. But this is still not an excuse to be a willful ignoramus. At least be curious about God’s astounding Creation, OK, believers? This might be the first bridge towards reaching atheistic scientists and their followers who ONLY have science (many eschew philosophy along with theology).

One scientist in the film sums it all up by stating that science MUST be open to ALL possibilities, so why not the possibility of a Designer? OR , as Scott Hahn says, at a certain point, a Creator/Designer IS the most logical answer, but because the atheistic-scientific bias and agenda is pre-set, we get the “anything but God” answers, theories, etc.

FEATURED SCIENTISTS: Lisa Randall, Jennifer Wiseman, John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, Stephen Barr, Arno Penzias, Michael Heller

For more information and fancy screening packages: www.CosmicOriginsFilm.com  (distributed by Ignatius Press).

Full disclosure: This film is a production of Barbara Nicolosi’s (my good friend) production company, “Origins Entertainment.” But do you think she even told me about this project?

MORE RESOURCES:

FILMS:

Two other (flawed) films that I highly recommend for those interested in the  atheism/evolutionism/
creationism debates:
--“Expelled” documentary (Ben Stein’s sheer propaganda for the “creationist” position) My review: http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2008/04/movies-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed_07.html#.UD6OvsFlQWM
--“Religulous” documentary (Bill Maher’s sheer propaganda to support his position which is that he really, really, really hopes there’s no God) My review:  http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2008/10/movies-religulous.html#.UD6QYsFlQWM

And here are two very UNflawed DVDs:
--“Creation or Evolution?” VISION VIDEO  Explains general theory of evolution, various particular theories of evolution, macro/micro- evolution. Protestant but consonant with Catholic understandings.
--“Theology of the Body and Evolution” Dr. Richard Sternberg www.theologyofthebody.net

BOOKS:

--“There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” Anthony Flew
--“The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” Francis S. Collins
--“Atheist to Catholic: How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Catholic Church” by Kevin Vost
--“Answering the New Atheism” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (written by Hahn and Wiker for 4 Franciscan Univ. Steubenville students led astray by Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” It brought ‘em back.)
--“Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis (a very small book that has been giving atheists pause for decades!)
--“Atheist Delusions” by David Hart (Orthodox) goes deeply into the atheist mindset and assumptions
--“Can a Smart Person Believe in God?” by Michael Guillen, award-winning Harvard physics prof
--“Faith of the Fatherless—the Psychology of Atheism” by Dr. Paul Vitz
--“The Drama of Atheist Humanism” by Henri de Lubac. What has been atheism’s historical track record? (atheist regimes)
--“Philosophers Who Believe—the Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers”
--"God and Evolution--Science Meets Faith" by Dr. Gerard Verschuuren

http://store.pauline.org/English/Books/tabid/126/List/0/ProductID/3873/Default.aspx?txtSearch=god+and+evolution&SortField=ProductName%2cProductName

SCIENCE AND FAITH AUTHORS:
Nancy Pearcey, John Polkinghorne, Stanley Jaki, Eric Cornell, Robert Augros, Lorenzo Albacete, Francis Collins

YOUTUBES:
--“God Is Dead” Fr. Pontifex debunks certain atheism claims (with stats of millions killed by atheistic governments) http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2012/06/god-is-dead.html#.UD7PoMFlQWM
--Fr. Barron on the New Atheism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

NOTABLE ATHEISTS WHO BECAME CHRISTIANS:
--C.S. Lewis--British author, Oxford English professor
--Jacques & Raissa Maritain--French philosophers
--Alisdair MacIntyre—Scottish philosopher
--Anthony Flew—British philosopher (edits philosophical encyclopediae)
--Francis S. Collins—American physician-geneticist, head of the Human Genome Project, present head of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
--Sally Read—famous young British poet
--Leah Libresco--famous young American atheist blogger

OTHER STUFF:

--www.STOQinternational.org=Vatican’s dialogue among science/faith/philosophy (The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to which Galileo belonged, also has atheists in its ranks like Stephen Hawking.)

--“Light becomes matter”? Whaaa--? If I heard correctly, the Big Bang was, like, this, like, explosion of light photons which, like, BECAME matter? Whaaaa---? I need professional scientific help. My brain is melting.

--Noted Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel: "Defenders of Intelligent Design Deserve Our Gratitude"

John G. West August 22, 2012 12:05 AM | Permalink

In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It's a bombshell.

Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html

Read More

MUSIC VIDEO: "THE PARENT RAP"

"...tying little shoes in knots..."

Read More